Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Kelly, Administratrix Of Kelly

• 1915 • 241 U.S. 485 • White Court
In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Kelly, 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company after it was sued by Mrs. Kelly for negligence leading to her husband's death while he was working on a train car that derailed due to an alleged faulty switch track. The court found that there wasn't enough evidence presented by Mrs.Kelly to prove negligence on part of the railway company and therefore could not hold them liable for Mr.Kelly’s death under Federal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1915
Docket: 321
241 U.S. 485
36 S. Ct. 630
60 L. Ed. 1117
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1728
Argued: Apr 19, 1916

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Kelly, Administratrix Of Kelly

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Kelly, 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company after it was sued by Mrs. Kelly for negligence leading to her husband's death while he was working on a train car that derailed due to an alleged faulty switch track. The court found that there wasn't enough evidence presented by Mrs.Kelly to prove negligence on part of the railway company and therefore could not hold them liable for Mr.Kelly’s death under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The court held that FELA did not make employers absolutely liable for work-related injuries or deaths but only if they were negligent, which had not been sufficiently proven in this case.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Kelly, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of law. The justice contended that there was no negligence on part of the railway company as it had fulfilled its duty to provide a safe workplace by providing safety appliances and instructions for their use. He further stated that any accident resulting from misuse or non-use of these devices could not be attributed to negligence on part of the employer but rather should be considered contributory negligence by employee himself which would bar him from recovery under common law rules. Additionally, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), arguing it did not intend to abolish common-law defenses such as assumption of risk or contributory negligence in all cases but only in those where employer’s violation directly caused injury. Therefore, he believed plaintiff failed to establish a case under FELA due lack proof showing direct causation between defendant's alleged violations and decedent's death.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Jun 05, 1916
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms